How Can I Live from Being?

"What is intelligence and how does it relate to awareness? When someone is described as having a bright mind, what makes one mind more creative and analytically capable than another? Rupert says: ‘Pure intelligence before it has been formulated is pure consciousness. And then when pure consciousness is formulated as a thought, it becomes what we call intelligence. What distinguishes it as intelligence would be the extent to which the presumption of separation is absent in the thought. To that extent, the thought is intelligent. An intelligent mind would be one that’s used in the service of unity, in the service of love and understanding, rather than separation. Such an intelligent mind wouldn’t necessarily be a well-educated mind or a sophisticated mind. It could be a very simple mind that expressed itself in very simple unsophisticated terms. But if that mind expressed unity in however simple terms it may do so, it would be a truly intelligent mind.’"

"If infinite consciousness doesn’t know the finite directly, why would expressions of understanding always be kind? Couldn’t consciousness want to experience some naughty games? Why does creation happen if consciousness doesn’t want it? Rupert says: ‘Consciousness doesn’t want to experience anything; a desire to experience something would be mind. A desire would be something finite. The “why creation?” question cannot be satisfactorily answered. It can only be undermined. If there were a cause for creation, then that cause would itself be something created. From the point of view of infinite consciousness, there is no creation. There is only a creation from the point of view of the apparently separate subject of experience. Someone who is supposedly awakened could enjoy being naughty, but they wouldn’t enjoy being unkind. There’s a big difference. Sometimes in order to establish truth, very firm measures are necessary. That would be in the service of love and understanding, not out of unkindness.’"

"The limited mind is needed to perceive the world, but separation isn’t required. Why did materialistic separation emerge initially? Could planets exist with many minds but no sense of separation? Rupert says: ‘The mechanism of perception requires the subject-object relationship. It’s not possible for you to see me if you do not stand apart from that object as a separate subject. So the subject-object relationship is the mechanism of perception. Given that all perception takes place in subject-object relationship, the apparently separate subject of experience can be forgiven for believing that the object they see is separate from them. But the subject-object relationship is an illusion. It’s a necessary illusion because it enables perception to take place. In theory, yes, it would be possible for there to be a world comprised of just the people on this retreat, everyone who had recognised their true nature, their activities and relationships were predicated on the understanding of unity and love. I feel that humanity is destined for that. I feel everything is tending towards that all the time. I think if humanity still exists in 500 years time, it will be a more enlightened one than ours.’"

It seems younger people sometimes can’t get beyond ‘I am my personality’. Is this understanding meant only for people with life experience? Rupert says: ‘There are many young people here, some of them in their twenties, who understand exactly what we’re speaking of and who have recognised their true nature. So no, a certain amount of life experience is not necessary. Life experience by itself doesn’t necessarily prepare one for this understanding. But others – their life experience has the opposite effect on them. It hardens them. It could be that at 24, your daughter is invested just on the cusp of going out into the world. She’s built an identity and considers this teaching is a profound threat to that identity. Whereas for you and her mother at your age, your identities are much softer, much looser, more open. It’s completely in line with the ageing process. As a parent, just be very gentle with that. Don’t push against it.’

When standing in awareness, there’s a natural process – people are kind without formulating thoughts. Is awareness indifferent to separation or unity? Rupert says: ‘Awareness is indifferent. But it’s not an indifference that comes from rejection. It’s more neutral. It is just its nature. It’s not an emotional attitude. Many people who have no interest in these matters are very decent, kind people whose lives are informed by an intuition of unity, even if they don’t formulate it in those terms. Even the people whose behaviour really violates truth or love have some recognition. They love their children. It’s just that they extend their love to such a small circle. Even those people have regular tastes of their true nature without knowing it. Every time a desire is fulfilled, and they have the experience of happiness, that’s the shining of their being. What we are doing here is cultivating something that is natural. We’re cultivating what is everybody’s essential sense of self.’

After staying off social media, which you suggested, there’s been amazing improvement – even feeling love for a problematic manager. How can this understanding spread into the world? Rupert says: ‘This upgrading of the operating system of our life, it’s a natural process. It happens naturally. We can cooperate with it, which hastens it. Some people take the understanding out into the world with explicit desire to express it. But others may have no desire to do so. Eckhart Tolle calls them “the frequency holders”. Just through their being, they touch the hearts of everyone who comes in contact with them. You should just do whatever feels natural. All our minds are connected. At the level of the collective unconscious, we’re all profoundly connected. Every thought you have contributes positively or negatively to humanity. It’s good to have one or two problematic people in our lives. They’re the ones that really test our unconditional love. We should all be very glad for our difficult managers.’

"Sometimes expectations seem bring about an intensity of reaction when things don’t align. Should one try not to have expectations? Does remaining in being reduce this intensity? Rupert says: ‘I think it’s reasonable and even necessary to have expectations in life, so I don’t recommend imposing on yourself a goal of not having expectations. But it’s a different thing to invest your happiness in the outcome of those expectations. I would suggest withdrawing the investment of your happiness in the outcome of your expectations. Your happiness is the taste of being. If you’re fulfilled, if you’re at peace in yourself, your happiness was invested where it truly lies, which is in your being. You still respond to situations, but you don’t react emotionally. This has a huge impact in relationships, particularly intimate relationships. If you withdraw that projection of happiness, that desire for the other to make you happy, and your happiness is invested where it truly lives, then the relationship is really a beautiful relationship.’"

"Yesterday at work, there was an experience of being completely present without personality, which led to my courageously confronting a lawyer. The response was forceful but not aggressive, and he later apologised. How can this extend to all relationships? Rupert says: ‘That’s a beautiful example. You were in your being. There was no animosity or hatred in you. A forceful statement was necessary, but the lawyer could feel that you were impersonal, that you were not judging him. You were addressing a situation. And he obviously felt that, and that placed him in the right place in himself. He didn’t need to defend himself because you weren’t attacking him. That’s how, if you stand in this impersonal place in being and you act from there, even if your action is forceful, you give the situation the best possible chance to move towards harmony. Whereas if you had been aggressive, it would’ve moved towards conflict.’"

"There’s the material world theory and the consciousness-only model. Do these share any aspects, or are they mutually exclusive? Can one be open to both coexisting? Rupert says: ‘The answer to both your questions is yes. They map very nicely on top of one another. You could ask a psychologist, biologist, chemist, or physicist to interpret the same experience, and they would all give different but coherent explanations through their respective lenses. These are not different models laid out in series, conflicting with each other. They’re all stacked up on top of each other. The whole universe is made of consciousness. All I’m suggesting is an extrapolation of that situation. I’m taking it one level up and suggesting that the waking state is itself a dream of a higher mind.’"

After easily recognising awareness as impersonal space through self-enquiry, there’s uncertainty about how to practice going deeper. Should such enquiry be repeated? Rupert says: ‘It’s only necessary to repeat that question or similar questions if you find yourself lost in the content of experience. You need some simple, easy, brief method to disentangle yourself from the content of your experience and come back to yourself. So self-enquiry has led to self-abidance. In time, you’ll find that you don’t even need to verbalise the question. You just notice that you’re lost in experience, pause, and go back to your true nature. You could simply say the words “I am”. The “I am” would just be this little portal, this stepping stone to take you back to your true nature. And then in the end, you don’t need the words, you just pause and go back.’

"During meditation, there’s often agitation and restlessness rather than peace. Understanding the teachings intellectually but still experiencing disturbance during practice. How can this be clarified? Rupert says: ‘You are always being. It’s just that your being gets mixed up with the content of your experience. It’s not even necessary for the agitation of your mind or the restlessness of your body to cease. You’ve gone through the layers of your experience, but you’re lost in your thoughts. It’s the last layer of experience for you. Just go one step down. You don’t even need to get rid of your agitated thoughts. Just let them go, don’t give them any attention. As soon as you notice you’re lost in thoughts or feelings again, you just go back down. The more you go back and forth, the more you’ll feel at home in your being. Don’t tell yourself a story that some circumstances are too difficult. It’s not true.’"

"I still get discouraged because, whilst being can be recognised, there’s still struggle with disentangling from experience content. Shouting at my family sometimes after meditation indicates that triggers remain. How can one dwell in being rather than merely visit it? Rupert says: ‘Don’t worry. Sometimes our mothers are maddening. You are always being – but don’t worry if you don’t live there all the time, you just dip into it. These openings that you describe – there are all these little gaps, natural gaps that nature gives you for free every day. Each time you feel one of these gaps, just sink into the warm bath of being, and then get out again and go about your everyday life. It takes time, especially for one who has a very sensitive nervous system. It’s not agitation; it’s sensitivity. When you call it agitation, you put a negative spin on it. Your nervous system will gently, progressively be infused by the peace of your true nature. You’ll still remain very sensitive, but your sensitivity and the agitation that attends it won’t disturb your being.’"